Now, you are trying to score points about Appalachia.  

Look, no one would think that a car on blocks in Appalachia is indicia of being their immigration status....That is the entire point....And whatever the law enforcement reason for asking for ID in Appalachia--I don't think having a car on blocks is one of them.....but is one of the stated reasons for hounding people in Arizona about their status....

And, you take a standard conservative tack of trying to define me into a position that you can caricature and misrepresent.  Jondee's comment about supporting the troops is an excellent one.
So, if I do not support your formulation of what border security should be, or what the overall immigration package should be, you say I am for "Open Borders"--trying to imply all sorts of things I don't stand for....

I have seen this tactic before--using the same term to mean different things, switching definitions--here, your version of Open Borders with the standard assumed definition.  Or, as another example, advocating the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is Socialism--completely mangling the standard definition of the term. This is the logical fallacy of equivocation:

The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. Consider the following example:

All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.

In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word "bank":

1.A riverside: In this sense, the premiss is true but the argument is invalid, so it's unsound.

2.A type of financial institution: On this meaning, the argument is valid, but the premiss is false, thus the argument is again unsound.
In either case, the argument is unsound. Therefore, no argument which commits the fallacy of Equivocation is sound.